Search form

You are here

Pre- Emptive Strikes

I'm a firm believer in pre-emptive striking when a legtimate threat is imminent. Who on this forum would probably just deliver a solid haymaker or hook punch to try and stop the threat ? I practice a variety of techniques from shoves, to palm heel strikes, to eye gouges in a variety of ways and circumstances but, I bet I'd throw a right hand shot out of pure instinct when it's for real.

So it got me thinking do I need to practice more so that I will instinctively do something different ? Or does it really matter at all as long as the threat is elimnated ? And if it doesn't matter why am training so hard on other stuff ?

I realize in reality I don't know what I'm really going to do but, the hook punch/haymaker seems the most natural. Thoughts ?

what I practise most, in terms of preemptive striking, is a real hard slap to the head/face, a.k.a. bitch slap. I don't like to use the knuckles of my fist in order to prevent injuries. What's also very effective is the good old headbutt.

I only have those two options in my preemptive arsenal besides some shoving and pushing. I think that is enough to prevent someone from jumping me. In my eyes, eye gouging is a bit to much of a fine motor skill thing. The eyes make for a really small target and I doubt my precision when it counts.

So I think you will be good with a solid right. The other things you work so hard on are for the things that come after you missed your preemptive shot.

An important topic and one that I'm surprised doesn't feature more heavily on this site, being dedicated to the practical application of karate as it is.

Our approach is to take one or two techniques and train them to the point of unconscious competence, to 'own' them. We also practice following up, should the pre-emptive strike not get the job done, as Holger says. Under duress we will probably experience a big drop off in performance (power, accuracy etc). Even if we do land our big shot the threat may not react in the way we'd like and so we practice blitzing. One of the drills we use to train this is to have the feeder move the focus mitts after the strike in different ways. If the mitt drops down then the immediate threat is over and we need to tactically withdraw. If it drops back and down, but only partly, then we need to attach and blitz.

We think that practicing your 'go to' pre-emptive strike should be done from different positions (hands down, 'thinking' posture, arms folded, under restriction etc), to allow for less than favourable circumstances too. For all that we'd like to think we have good situational awareness we're not perfect and sometimes we get caught out.

Under duress we will probably experience a big drop off in performance (power, accuracy etc). Even if we do land our big shot the threat may not react in the way we'd like and so we practice blitzing. One of the drills we use to train this is to have the feeder move the focus mitts after the strike in different ways. If the mitt drops down then the immediate threat is over and we need to tactically withdraw. If it drops back and down, but only partly, then we need to attach and blitz.

Lee is one of my training partners so I can answer the question regarding blitzing.

Its quite simple really, a pre-emptive strike is an ''unattached'' technique. Blitzing assumes a failed or ineffective strike, the opponent is stunned, maybe rocked but still able to respond. After the pre-emptive strike is thrown I locate the pad with my off hand and then blitz the pad with my dominant hand. The blitzing technique can be anything, palm heels, elbows, hammer fists even knee strikes if the target drops low enough. As long as they're delivered hard and often it doesn't matter.

Regarding the pre-emptive strike I believe two techniques should be drilled to a high level of competence for tactical reasons.

If you prefer a hooking technique, consider a scenario where an assailant has their arms wide, maybe flailing as they posture or gesticulate. This may impede your angle or line of attack, creating hesitation ,which is not whats required in such a situation.

The opposite of that scene is if you prefer and only train a straight technique in a situation where your opponent has their arms very central/compact, eg. attempting to push to intimidate. Such a scene may obstruct the straight technique.

Environment is another factor. If you're in a place where there is no room, or perhaps your dominant side is impeded by a wall etc. a hooking technique may be awkward.

For the guys at my club I teach open handed techniques in the first instance as that is my preferred choice, but I do encourage them to practice closed fist strikes as they progress, the choice ultimately is theirs.

Another factor to consider are 'tells'. Try not to advertise your intentions with facial expressions or taking stances, minimize shoulder movement prior to striking. These are aspects of pre-emption that are often overlooked.

As Lee stated, we practice striking from various postures, you can't assume the fence everytime.

I agree with Holger regarding specific eye attacks for Pre-emption. If you have access to a BOB mannequin try this drill. With your hands in a fence slap Bob with your off hand to start it moving slightly, immediately attempt an eye gouge or finger poke to the eye, notice how often you miss the target. People won't stand dead still while their eyes are attacked. A Pre-emptive strike, by its nature, should be a simple, high percentage technique because whenever it is needed for real fear and adrenalin will be present in abundance, the last thing you need is a high level of targeting.

In response to Michaels original question I firmly believe that with the right sort of training you can move beyond a right haymaker and have a couple of techniques that can be tactically applied, depending on cicumstance.

I'm a firm believer in pre-emptive striking when a legtimate threat is imminent. Who on this forum would probably just deliver a solid haymaker or hook punch to try and stop the threat ? I practice a variety of techniques from shoves, to palm heel strikes, to eye gouges in a variety of ways and circumstances but, I bet I'd throw a right hand shot out of pure instinct when it's for real.

My thoughts on this is that we should know ahead of time exactly what shot(s) we will use and have drilled it to distraction in a pre-emptive context. Having decisions to make when under stress is likely to lead to indecision so, as far as is possible, we should define things ahead of time. For me, if will be a right slap.

The reason I like the slap is that is has percussive, sensational and psychological stunning effects. It also does not require the hand to close into a fist as we switch from the deceptive dialogue to the strike; which could result in “tell”. The slap also has “low third party perceptions” which can help with any legal aftermath. What I mean by that is that it does not look as aggressive and is perceived as being a more “passive” action i.e. “he punched him in the face” sounds much more aggressive than “he slapped his face”. Finally, although a good slap can drop people no trouble at all, it is less likely to cause significant injury from the impact (to both hitter and the hit) which will again help avoid any legal issues (and is one reason why the police tend to like it).

In my dojo, the slap is the pre-emptive strike taught initially and the one tested for gradings for the first year or so. After that they can switch to any other strike they choose, so long as it works for them and is tactically sound. So I’m not saying the slap is the only way to go, but it’s a sound choice that suits most and that’s why we emphasise it and start with it.

There are other strikes to back up the slap too. For example, the back slap is an important one when pre-empting against multiples as it’s generally not a good idea to initially strike the one in front but instead strike one to the side in a way that does not result in you turning your back on anyone. The one in front is the one most expecting to get hit and when someone considered “safe” gets dropped is can cause more confusion and panic. This podcast has more on that:

What is also important is that the strike fits in with the dialogue. Once the assailant has triggered the sequence (by closing the distance, touching the hand, etc) then the question “Why can’t we talk about this?” is asked. On the “why” the hands are turned upward and the right hand are drops to the side. This is perfectly natural “body language” for a question and the disguises the prime for the strike. The slap then comes in on the “?” on the sentence. The student is then encouraged to flee in the moment of shock and surprise (even if the strike did not get a KO, the attempt can still cause shock and surprise as it should have been entirely unexpected) in order to avoid getting dragged in to a long confrontation, to avoid the assailant’s accomplices, and to help ensure we stay on the right side of the law. (Note: I feel the UK self-defence law is very good and is very unlikely to prosecute anyone legitimately acting is self-defence, but it still makes sense to ensure all training is as effective as possible physically while still being legally sound).

Further developments in the training process would include the assailant(s) running after the pre-empter so they can practise hitting on the move and escaping; no strike being required because the verbal de-escalation worked; the person being rushed so dialogue and pre-emption are no longer appropriate; the pre-emptive strike being entirely neutralised (i.e. blocked and expected) so follow on techniques are needed, etc.

There’s a lot to pre-emption and the more information we can share on it the better I feel.

Once the assailant has triggered the sequence (by closing the distance, touching the hand, etc) then the question “Why can’t we talk about this?” is asked. On the “why” the hands are turned upward and the right hand are drops to the side. This is perfectly natural “body language” for a question and the disguises the prime for the strike. The slap then comes in on the “?” on the sentence.

Our approach differs a little here. We don't have a set question - the student chooses their own, just so long as it's an open one. Also, we leave a gap between the end of the question and the strike, as per Geoff Thompson's 'brain engagement'.

Our approach differs a little here. We don't have a set question - the student chooses their own, just so long as it's an open one. Also, we leave a gap between the end of the question and the strike, as per Geoff Thompson's 'brain engagement'.

Just as we have a set strike initially, we also offer, “Why can’t we talk about this?” as a set question. The student however is free to choose another question if they wish, providing it is negative (i.e. leads the assailant to think a submissive position has been adopted and hence a strike is not imminent) and open (i.e. can’t be answered with a yes or a no and hence better engages the brain). The key thing is that the question is the same every time and the student has drilled striking at the end of it thousands of times. So our approaches would be the same here.

As regards brain engagement, that is very important which is why I encourage people to hit on the “?” i.e. when the last word has been clearly said and the sentence is finished. Once the question has been asked, the assailant will start to process it and we want to hit at that point. I would worry that with too long a gap they have finished mentally processing it and are now giving their reply. However, it is also important that the question has been asked and striking before then would mean the brain was not engaged. Again, that’s why I say “hit on the question mark” and not “hit on the last word” or even “hit on the end of the last word”. The question mark is after the end of the last word. A finite, but important distinction I think; which I find gets the right timings.

The other function of the question is as an “action trigger”. For those who don’t know what is meant by that, it is something to get us moving in the face of fear. Because we have trained asking the same question and striking after it countless times, the strike is an almost pavlovian response to the question. Again, I would worry that a gap would break the “action trigger” link between question and action. It could also induce hesitation as the student ponders if the pause has been long enough.

If I were just reading this thread, I may think we did differ a little, but having sat on grading panels for your group and seen how you drill this I know you do it in a very effective way which is entirely consistent with how we do. What may differ is how we describe it and hopefully our combined posts will make things clear for people. Many thanks.

If I were just reading this thread, I may think we did differ a little, but having sat on grading panels for your group and seen how you drill this I know you do it in a very effective way which is entirely consistent with how we do. What may differ is how we describe it and hopefully our combined posts will make things clear for people. Many thanks.

I take your point Iain and I see what you mean.

Thanks very much for the compliment. Credit for the gradings you've chaired goes to Mark B as he not only undertook them, but composed them too.

Its a good thread this, and lots of different views can help to create the whole.

One thing I teach when the guys are practicing their pre-emptives is the mindset. Its sometimes easy whilst in the comfort of the Dojo to go through the motions somewhat. Always deliver the chosen technique with the proper vehemence, the difference will be noticeable through feedback from your pad holder, although physically you won't be actually trying to hit any harder.

This leads me to the next consideration. Always deliver your technique with the maximum power you can muster. I'm sure most people think they do, I know I did, that is until I attended a course at John Skillens Dojo at which I and everyone else on the course discovered we actually weren't . John squeezed another 10-15% impact from my technique beyond what I thought I could muster. With a pre-emptive strike clearly we aim to strike once and escape, either through KO, or by dissuading your opponent from further confrontation, so it makes sense not to waste any available power.

One other point I teach the guys is that in the Dojo the bad guy can at times over play the role, making any dialogue artificially long, in the real environment your adversary may engage in a short dialogue but they will strike quicker than people expect, so if you favour a trigger question be aware and don't leave it too late to apply it

Anyway, they're just a few more aspects to creating and drilling an efficient pre-emptive strike(s).

Michael, you got a lot of good replies. In a justified use of force context, preemption is your best bet to control the outcome with the least damage to both you and the other guy. So, from a self-protection standpoint, it represents your 'best' option in a threat-aware encounter context (meaning, 'you haven't been ambused') to 1) end the encounter in a way that is most LEGALLY justifiable and 2) to end the encounter in a way that is most favorable to you via the use of the element of surprise.

So, this scenario assumes you have decided that verbal defense is no longer an option, nor, probably is leaving. In that case, a sudden, preemptive shot to a vital area if possible, is extremely useful as an ENTRY to follow on movements. And to answer your question, no it doesn't matter if its a sudden punch (if it works), but the key is it needs to be sudden, and it needs to be the 'can opener' to some other motions (follow-up strikes, manipulation, push / escape that are almost 'just as' well rehearsed as your one preemption. i.e. 'Don't bet the farm' on one motion.

If your hands are up, you can find some nice ones in inherited karate kata. For instance, the 'clapping' motion in Naihanchi 1. Some people say that motion is 'symbolic'. (If so, then what the heck good is it in self defense?!?? :-)) My personal take is that its a fairly nice preemption for extremely close range (i.e. somebody right up in your face who has not hit you with sudden forward pressure). But you don't quite clap the knuckles into the palm, a slight adaptation is to chop the EDGE of the hand into the palm. (Done quickly, a person watching the form can't tell the difference). Then in application, the receiving hand 'claps' the side of the neck while the other hand chopes the carotid on the opposite side. The result is a shock wave that meets somehwere in the middle of the head, and I canassure you, my guys HATE it when I do this one. (Also, credit where credit is due here, it was some stuff of Russell Stutely's that made me realize what was happening with the shock wave.) Play around with it....***very lightly***.

Another one is the fist into the palm in Passai. With a little adustment, the hand punches the jaw line at a 45 degree upward angle as the other hand 'receives' the force from the other side of the head, hi on the back corner, such that you end up punching AT your hand. Again, the subtle shift in angle is not readily apparent to most who watch the form visually.

Stutely shows another nice one similar to Passai on his website, where you chop the triple warmer with the ridge hand and cup the front upper quadrant of the skull. I have seen people who do Passai that way, too; and with a back fist into the palm. The small niggle i have with this one is that its harder to get your hand positioned on or behind the guys shoulder without it kicking off unless your in a posuition that lightly touching someone might be OK i.e. cop or dooman).

In both the Niahanchi and Passai forms, you'll see that the hands are next brought DOWN by the waist. Which, if you knock the guy out or stun him really well is a good way to let him down easy. Iain just posted a video recently of a guy who got killed (the dead kind) with one hard shot outside a bar oevr there. So, to me, a 'good' preemption will offer force escalation options: You can 'love tap' them nicely and run, or you can try to behead them. It's your call.

And before anyone flames me, no I am **not** advocating no-touch knock-outs/ death touches, or voodoo-doll effigies of the other guy that you carry in your pocket. However, my personal belief is that BEFORE the chaos of an actual real 'fight' ensues is one of the 'best' times (perhaps 'the' best) to actually bother to TRY and hit a "pressure point" or other 'called shot'.

Another 'mystery motion' which makes a good preemption is the "moon viewing" nonsense at the beginning of kusanku... It doesn't exactly go with the bending over, but that 'triangular' hand position is a great way to apply a double palm heel strike to the upper skull, by accelarating it suddenly, and anybody I have tried this on never sees it coming. No surprise that you see a lot of knockouts in MMA from the 'skimming' round kick that appears to just 'graze' the top of the head, its the same phenomena, just applied frontally.

Anyway, since this is a karate forum, I thought I would list some of the ones I show that I have learned from karate. Most of these work from a high "fence" (Thompson) fairly easiily.

And... you CAN (IMO) always just punch them in the jaw, that works too. But, whatever you pick, you should 'own' it; you need to train it a lot, and you need to 'connect' a lot of 'other' stuff to it... say: one 'primary' ejection and/or shuck, one control, one throw, and one body lock to start, building out from there. And, you need to train just as much (or more) for those initiative classes where you fire at the same time he does, where the other guy gets the jump on you, and where you have been ambushed and are 'in' the fight before you know the threat is even there. For 'real' self defense, perhaps that last one most of all.

PS: Highly recommend searching this on the old forum, I know we discussed it a half dozen times at least there.

Another element we add to our striking is emotional content - feeling it and meaning it. As important as power generation and, to a lesser extent, accuracy are without a good dose of spite and vehemence they will only make us functionally competent, and that simply not be enough 'on the night'.

One of the things we do to try and engender this mindset is to have the students mentally visualise a situation in which they are fully justified in striking (but not something drawn from real life, as we don't want to traumatise anyone in the process). Interestingly we've found that when we create a scenario in which we are acting to protect a significant other we get better results than one in which we are protecting ourselves. There may be some profound psychological explanation for this, but it's enough for us to know that it works.

I really appreciate everyone taking the time to engage in this discussion. It has been extremely informative. I work in the security/law enforcement field in Toronto, Canada and am quite involved in use of force training so this topic is of great interest to me.

One of the reasons I brought this topic up for discussion was because recently I just got certified in PPCT use of force. During that training I found I was punching "instinctively" rather than slapping or use my forearm as a strike to counter attacks. I know exactly why that is and I'm sure my many years as a karate competitor has something to do with it.

With that being said, one of the techniques I really thought was practical for self protection and law enforcement was the "brachial stun" to the neck. It's delivered with the meaty inside part of the forearm. They really stress not to use the boney part of the arm for safety/legal reasons. This technique essentially drops the person blood pressure and they will probably feel quite dazed or may even pass out which eliminates the threat of further assault but, like Iain said it doesn't leave any marks and it doesn't look at all brutal to the public especially when using verbal commands such as " Get Back or Stop Assaulting Me". In law enforcement it's all about "public perception" which is a whole other topic on it's own.

I worked as a police and corrections officer for 18 years. On one occassion an inmate shouted at me and began walking towards me in an aggressive manner. Without thinking about it and having never considered it before as a martial arts technique when the inmate closed on me without slowing his stride, I reached up and flicked him in the right eye with my left index finger. This stopped him in his tracks without serious injury,but allowed me any follow up technique if needed.